English
English version: The term 'Ekayana' (One Vehicle), refers to the perfect teaching (yuanjiao) encompassing the four teachings (sijiao), all of which can be called 'perfect' (yuan). Commentary: If the perfect teaching encompasses the four teachings, all of which can be called 'perfect,' then is this Ekayana a single vehicle that eliminates expedient means and returns to reality, or is it named Ekayana as an expedient relative to the true vehicle (zhengcheng)? If it is named Ekayana as an expedient relative to the true vehicle, why would Qingliang (referring to the Huayan School master Qingliang Chengguan) fully incorporate its meaning? If it is a single vehicle that eliminates expedient means and returns to reality, then why is this Ekayana inferior to the expedient means that flow from it? Because the following recorded text separately judges the inclusion of expedient means, considering it not to be the meaning of perfect, unobstructed, and self-existent. Record: Therefore, the two citations of scriptures below refer to the Bodhisattva path, which is the Ekayana. Commentary: To say that the Bodhisattva path is the Ekayana, is it the true vehicle or the expedient vehicle? If it is the true vehicle, why does the chapter say it is the same and not different? If it is the expedient vehicle, why did the previous text cite it as 'three are one,' but now fully incorporates its meaning? Record: The expedient vehicle is divided into ten types, and even if one horizontally relies on expedient means to advance towards the Dharma gate, there are two meanings: Generally speaking, Ekayana is established by relying on the ultimate Ekayana teaching. Why? Because it flows from the Ekayana. It is also designated by the Ekayana teaching. Secondly, it serves as an expedient for that ultimate perfect vehicle. Therefore, it is said that Ekayana is not the meaning of perfect, unobstructed, and self-existent. All three vehicles, etc., can be called Ekayana. If it is said that what flows out is used as a designation, without difference, etc., then it is the Dharma of perfect penetration. If it is said that verbal expedient means are expedient, then the three vehicles, etc., are not the meaning of perfect penetration. Commentary: If it is said that the three vehicles, etc., that flow from and are designated by horizontally relying on expedient means are the Dharma of perfect penetration, is it phenomenal perfection (shi yuantong) or perfection in principle and phenomena (li-shi yuantong)? If it is the same as the perfection in principle and phenomena of the teaching, why only select what flows out and is designated, and specifically exclude the inclusion of expedient means? Is the inclusion of expedient means not perfection in principle and phenomena? If it is the perfection in every phenomenon (shi-shi yuantong) of the distinct teaching (biejiao), why did the previous record treat it as the causal Dharma of the common teaching (tongjiao)? According to this, there are two types of common teaching. Furthermore, if what flows out and is designated is the Dharma of perfect penetration, and the inclusion of expedient means is not the Dharma of perfect penetration, then how should the intermingling of their Dharma characteristics be understood in terms of the eight meanings of the superior gate, the profound and subtle ten meanings of the teaching, events, etc.? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
便。此五义圆通同教邪。非即圆通同教也。又断惑分齐文曰。若摄方便。前诸教所明。并入此中。以是此方便故。及所流所目故。且彼中同教。是非即圆通同教邪。又若摄方便与所流所目圆通不圆通异者。且摄方便中二乘回心。如舍利弗等六千人。于文殊边。回心即得十大法门。及十眼十耳等境界。其所流所目圆通同教之机。得何法门。何等境界。若与摄方便所得同者。何圆通不圆通之异。若与方便所得不同者。离十大法门十眼十耳等境界外。更有何法。又贤首何于明佛种性行位分齐中。独取不即圆通。而弃圆通乎。清凉约圆融不融。分成二种。融即别教普法。不融乃同教一乘。今此记文。立立圆通不圆通同教。于理可乎。又若约教义摄益中。为彼所目作别教释圆通法者。横依方便。约唯一圆教否。三乘俱非教义。约正乘方便乘。同别角玄否。则亦违下章就同教说。又亦自语楚夏。以前文就同教说故。然法真大师。引至相会三归一。故知同也。又引今以理求通之。与同无别趣也。曰。今从至相等正义既出。遂今华严大宗。同别二教。犹天之日月。易之乾坤纪纲振举。主伴齐彰。学者司南。得门而入。使未渊源之游说。孰不负荆归已。筑底之玄谈。理应截舌。病根连㧞。教眼永安。立二种同。深不可也。 记曰。 现代汉语译本：问：那么，这五种方便（指摄方便、所流、所目、圆通、同教）是相同的圆通同教吗？答：不是相同的圆通同教。又，关于断惑的分齐，文中说：‘如果摄取方便，之前的各种教义所阐明的，都并入其中，因为这是方便的缘故，以及所流和所目的缘故。’那么，其中的同教，是非即圆通同教吗？又，如果摄方便与所流所目的圆通，在圆通与不圆通上有所不同，那么，在摄方便中，二乘（声闻乘和缘觉乘）回心，比如舍利弗等六千人，在文殊菩萨那里回心，立即得到十大法门，以及十眼十耳等境界。那么，所流所目的圆通同教的根机，得到什么法门？什么境界？如果与摄方便所得相同，那么，圆通与不圆通的差异在哪里？如果与方便所得不同，那么，除了十大法门、十眼十耳等境界外，还有什么法？又，贤首国师为什么在阐明佛种性行位分齐时，只取不即圆通，而舍弃圆通呢？清凉国师根据圆融与不圆融，分成两种：圆融即别教的普法，不圆融乃同教的一乘。现在这篇记文，立圆通与不圆通的同教，在道理上可以吗？又，如果从教义摄益的角度，为彼所目作别教解释圆通法，横向依据方便，是唯一圆教吗？三乘（声闻乘、缘觉乘、菩萨乘）都不是教义，是依据正乘方便乘，同别角玄吗？那么也违反了下章就同教说的内容，也自相矛盾。因为前文就同教说的缘故。然而，法真大师引用至相会三归一，所以知道是相同的。又引用‘现在以理求通’，与同没有别的旨趣。说：‘现在从至相等正义既出，于是华严大宗，同教和别教，犹如天空的日月，易经的乾坤，纪纲振举，主伴齐彰，学者有了指南，得门而入，使那些没有渊源的游说，谁不负荆请罪？那些筑底的玄谈，理应截舌。病根连根拔起，教眼永远安宁。’立两种同，实在不可取。 记文说：
English
English version: Question: Then, are these five expedients (referring to 'gathering expedient', 'that which flows', 'that which is aimed at', 'perfect penetration', and 'common teaching') the same perfect penetration common teaching? Answer: They are not the same perfect penetration common teaching. Furthermore, regarding the divisions of cutting off delusion, the text says: 'If gathering expedient is included, what was explained by the previous teachings is all incorporated into this, because this is an expedient, and because of that which flows and that which is aimed at.' Then, is the common teaching within that the non-identical perfect penetration common teaching? Also, if 'gathering expedient' and the 'perfect penetration' of 'that which flows' and 'that which is aimed at' differ in terms of perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration, then, within 'gathering expedient', the turning of minds of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), such as Śāriputra and the six thousand others, upon turning their minds at Mañjuśrī's side, immediately obtain the ten great Dharma gates, as well as the realms of ten eyes and ten ears. Then, what Dharma gates and what realms do the capacities of the perfect penetration common teaching of 'that which flows' and 'that which is aimed at' obtain? If it is the same as what is obtained by 'gathering expedient', then where is the difference between perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration? If it is different from what is obtained by the expedient, then what Dharma is there besides the ten great Dharma gates, ten eyes, and ten ears? Furthermore, why did Master Xianshou, in clarifying the divisions of the Buddha-nature conduct and position, exclusively take the non-identical perfect penetration and abandon perfect penetration? Master Qingliang divided it into two types based on fusion and non-fusion: fusion is the universal Dharma of the distinct teaching, and non-fusion is the one vehicle of the common teaching. Now, this commentary establishes a common teaching of perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration. Is this reasonable? Also, if from the perspective of the teaching's benefit, one interprets the perfect penetration Dharma for 'that which is aimed at' as a distinct teaching, is it horizontally based on expedient, and is it the only perfect teaching? Are the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna) not the teaching's meaning, and is it based on the correct vehicle and expedient vehicle, the same or different, angled and profound? Then it also violates the content of the following chapter which discusses the common teaching, and it also contradicts itself, because the previous text discussed the common teaching. However, Master Fazhen cited 'reaching the meeting and returning to the three', so it is known to be the same. He also cited 'now seeking penetration through reason', which has no different purpose from the same. He said: 'Now, since the correct meaning of reaching equality has been issued, therefore, in the Huayan (Avataṃsaka) school, the common teaching and the distinct teaching are like the sun and moon in the sky, like Qian and Kun in the Book of Changes, the fundamental principles are upheld, the host and guests are clearly distinguished, scholars have a guide, and enter through the gate, so that those who speak without a source, who would not carry thorns and return to themselves? Those who engage in profound discussions without a foundation should have their tongues cut off. The root of the illness is pulled out completely, and the eye of the teaching is forever at peace.' Establishing two kinds of sameness is deeply unacceptable. The commentary says: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
合一同三为大乘。开出愚法为小乘。回心属大。以此趣佛果故。 评曰。回心属大。皆趣佛果者。大般若曰。若不情类于声闻乘性决定者。闻此法已。速能证得自无漏地等。深密又曰。普为发趣一切乘者。趣佛果乎。虽华严论分上下乘别。非此中意。 记曰。上开者。是于一大善巧法中。开作三宗也。 评曰。此引探玄。证一乘为别。前谓方便配一乘。属同法真得。尔自语相违邪。前云但演义为文。非玉峰辨第三昧者。为此等也。 记曰。当知分相中虽但拣三乘。祖意正有三宗不同。 评曰。前文正在三宗不同者。且分相门别旨邪。三宗邪。合愚法同回心邪。开愚法异回心邪。下重示三宗。成显法本末邪。成分相门邪。 记曰。法华会三归一。正破小乘。故曰非也。 评曰。法华会三归一者。渐之终极邪。圆之同教邪。文云。正破小乘。合愚法同回心破邪。开愚法异回心破邪。此中法华非小乘。与前正破小乘。其意同邪异邪。 记曰。问终教亦有二乘邪。答界内二乘。前教则无。唯此有也。昔人云。此乃说前小乘。非终教有。此说太疏。 评曰。此之问答。申断惑前义耶。若申前义。何谓昔人此说太疏。若申后义。何谓界内二乘终教。独有如此。诰之全无所 现代汉语译本： 合三乘为一，即是大乘（Mahayana）。分开愚法，即是小乘（Hinayana）。回心向大乘，是因为以此可以趋向佛果（Buddha-phala）。 评论说：‘回心向大乘，皆趋向佛果’，如《大般若经》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）所说：‘若非情性决定属于声闻乘（Śrāvakayāna）者，闻此法已，速能证得自无漏地等。’《深密解脱经》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）又说：‘普遍为了发趣一切乘者，趋向佛果吗？’虽然《华严论》（Avatamsaka Sutra）区分上下乘的差别，但并非此处的意义。 记录说：上面所说的‘开’，是在一大善巧法中，开作三宗。 评论说：此处引用探玄的说法，证明一乘（Ekayana）是别教。前面说方便配一乘，属于同法真得。你这是自语相违吗？前面说只是演义为文，并非玉峰辨第三昧者，就是为了这个。 记录说：应当知道，在分相中虽然只是拣择三乘，祖师的用意正是有三宗不同。 评论说：前文正在说三宗不同，且分相门别旨吗？三宗吗？合愚法同回心吗？开愚法异回心吗？下面重新显示三宗，成就显法本末吗？成分相门吗？ 记录说：《法华经》（Lotus Sutra）会三归一，正是为了破斥小乘，所以说‘非也’。 评论说：《法华经》会三归一，是渐教的终极吗？是圆教的同教吗？经文说‘正是为了破斥小乘’，合愚法同回心破斥吗？开愚法异回心破斥吗？此处的《法华经》非小乘，与前面‘正是为了破斥小乘’，其意义相同吗？不同吗？ 记录说：问：终教也有二乘吗？答：界内二乘，前教则没有，唯有此教有。昔人说：‘这乃是说前小乘，非终教有。’此说太疏漏。 评论说：此处的问答，是申述断惑前的意义吗？若是申述前义，为何说昔人此说太疏漏？若是申述后义，为何说界内二乘终教独有如此，诰之全无所说？